Hell + God = Nonsense

Originally posted by serigado
[/i]In resume, nothing tells me the difference between a false prophet from a true one. The best you have is testimonies many centuries old. That does not suit me.
There are dozens of those prophets. All they have their share of miracles and witnesses. Nothing makes one better then the other.
I listen to others, but I never take as true what people say. I ...[text shortened]... clearly and regularly to all of us, instead of letting us rely on hear say from centuries ago.

instead of letting us rely on hear say from centuries ago.

Do you think that because it is from centuries ago is enough reason to make it unreliable?

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b] instead of letting us rely on hear say from centuries ago.

Do you think that because it is from centuries ago is enough reason to make it unreliable?[/b]

Yes. In Islam not specifically because it's old, because there's enough evidence to me that Qu'ran hasn't been changed since it's origin. Problem with translations doesn't exist, either.
But how can I rely on the word of one men who went to reclusion and that an angel dictated the exact word of God? It seems strange. Couldn't he just made it by himself, in a try to change the world? And the Sunnah, or Haddith (?), doesn't make any sense. Mohammed brought a lot of war and suffering to everyone, how can this be an example? And Haddith has many wise words, but many don't make sense.
You said we can filter and make judgements on our own, that is to commend. By I question the holyness of muhammed from the start.

Originally posted by serigado
Yes. In Islam not specifically because it's old, because there's enough evidence to me that Qu'ran hasn't been changed since it's origin. Problem with translations doesn't exist, either.
But how can I rely on the word of one men who went to reclusion and that an angel dictated the exact word of God? It seems strange. Couldn't he just made it by himself, i on our own, that is to commend. By I question the holyness of muhammed from the start.

I'm sorry , now what you say start to be a way of reasoning. It is just a repeation of others words.

I will ask you a clear question:

Did you read about the details of the life of prophet mohammed? How much did you read and what was your sources?

Your initial argument was that because the Quran is 1400 old, then we can't rely on it to know GOD, but now you say something different.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Proof of what? That you can find vague similarities between two pieces of text? If you think your link proves the validity of the Qu'ran then read them both again more carefully.

First, it is not Quran, it is Hadith.

Second it is not a vague similarity, it is a very clear one.

The Prophet say that home flies have cures, and moder mscience proved that. Or may be you mean that the prophet didn't say antibiotics???!!!

The article say:

"Our research is a small part of a global research effort for new antibiotics, but we are looking where we believe no-one has looked before,”

But appearntly the prophet did that 1400 years ago? and he was very clear, you have to sink the fly into your drink so that the cure could be released: Look what the article say about that:

"The antibiotic material is extracted by drowning the flies in ethanol, then running the mixture through a filter to obtain the crude extract. "

I'm not an expert in bio-related stuff, but I know that there is a small amount of ethanol in many drinks and it is enough to release enough cure.

I don't see this a vague similarity!!!!

Originally posted by serigado
[b]You are now saying, "No sin justifies eternal damnation." is just your
opinion?
Of course it's my opinion. BTW, I'm against death penalty too.


I don't say that the God you believe does not exist. I could I know such a fact? I say the description of your God made by the Bible makes plausible that the Bible isn't correct, and quite possibly your ...[text shortened]... ould be a compliment for you. Means you can't be moved out of your faith, nothing more.[/b]

"I say the description of your God made by the Bible makes plausible that the Bible isn't correct, and quite possibly your God a men made invention."

I'd like to touch this post again, this portion of it. Now I have read the
Bible from cover to cover more than once. I know others have too and
those that I know about from time to time can and have disagreed
with me over various and sundry points. So how do you know what I
believe about God by reading scripture with respect to what God is
like? My views on scripture, my takes on what is and is not important
may be completely different from what you get when you read
scripture. So exactly how do you know what I believe isn't true if you
may not have a solid view on how I 'view' God through scripture if our
readings produce different takes on the same verse?

Not trying to trap you, just wondering?
Kelly

Originally posted by epiphinehas
But people do choose to reject Christ in this life, definitively and finally. Christ says that such people are condemned already. Therefore, it is accurate to say that hell will most definitely not be empty. How empty remains to be seen, of course.

The bottom line is, if there is no hell, then there is no free will, and vice versa.

Vice versa: if there is no free will, there is no eternal, tortuous condemnation.

Is the flame worth the candle? Did Christ not sacrifice his free will exactly in order to eradicate this dilemma? And yet, according to you, who believes in the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, the dilemma remains. [The law did not save, but only condemns (Paul)].

If the dilemma remains, then it is not a question of whether free will condemns serigado (or me) to hell, but whether or not (1) Christ’s sacrifice of free will still allows serigado to be condemned, and (2) in personal moral terms, whether or not I think my free will (or yours) is worth his (or anyone else’s) eternal condemnation and suffering.

___________________________________

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to [pros: with, to, in company with, along with, in the presence of, beside] myself.

—No mention of free will, and “only those who choose” here. Come to think of it, I’m not sure that the Biblical collection of texts articulates a clear and univocal theory of free will.

1 Corinthians 15:22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]But you aren't irrational. You are sticking to what you have a good reason to think is true, in light of the difficulties. I am doing the same, in light of the difficulties.

The difference is that you believe that serigado is condemned to eternal hell for sticking to what he has good reason to think is true, while you will be rewarded with eternal insist that whatever is transcendent to that grammar cannot be presumed to be extra-natural.[/b]

Wrong, I don't believe for a sec that if I 'believe' this is true or that is
true, that 'belief' will save me from Hell. That is not how scripture
has it written either, you either come to God and get right with Him
by the one and only means God setup or you don't. It is a right
relationship with God in Christ not "how old the earth is" or many other
things we argue about here at this place. Nothing I believe will save
me, my relationship with Christ that does, because it is Christ that
saves me.
Kelly

PS I should add my relationship with Christ is a belief so if that is the
belief you are refering too, I'd agree either you have a relationship
with God in Christ or you do not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wrong, I don't believe for a sec that if I 'believe' this is true or that is
true, that 'belief' will save me from Hell. That is not how scripture
has it written either, you either come to God and get right with Him
by the one and only means God setup or you don't. It is a right
relationship with God in Christ not "how old the earth is" or many other
t ...[text shortened]... fering too, I'd agree either you have a relationship
with God in Christ or you do not.

If I recall correctly, for you hell is not eternal torment, because it is destroyed in the lake of fire—the “second death”, which being a death, I would think is final. So at least there is a terminus to the torment.

Have I got that right?

__________________________________

I really must get another copy of The Great Divorce, I know. Maybe the local library . . .

__________________________________

EDIT:

I think what serigado is saying, in part, is that if someone describes a God to him in terms that make no sense to him, he cannot believe—nor can he reasonably be expected to. People like telerion and myself are sometimes accused of having never “really” believed, or else we would not have relinquished our beliefs (not an accusation that I think you have ever made).

Now, I happen to still think that there are some “God-concepts” that make sense. You’ve been around me long enough to know that God as a being—a supernatural, super-being—is not one of them. So, we disagree about that; and some say that I ought not to use the word "God" at all then, and sometimes I have agreed with them. I also think that a God who condemns people to eternal damnation for simply not being able to believe in him, cannot be a God who is love: that makes no sense to me at all, and after all the argument on here, still does not. Again, you’ve been around long enough to have seen all the arguments that I and others have presented on this, and know that they have gone to great lengths and depths.

And yet, people are so cock-sure that their understanding of God is the right one, that anyone whose beliefs differ from that is not a “true” Christian—or whatever. And so stands condemned. I what I might understand the Christ to be is heresy for you, then I don’t believe in the “real Christ”, and so stand condemned.

I think the arguments on here are a testimony to that fact that people do believe that what you think, and how you think, about these things determines your salvation or condemnation—whether you are thinking reasonably or not. Some, like FreakyKBH, are pretty up-front in saying just that.

Originally posted by vistesd
Vice versa: if there is no free will, there is no eternal, tortuous condemnation.

Is the flame worth the candle? Did Christ not sacrifice his free will exactly in order to eradicate this dilemma? And yet, according to you, who believes in the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, the dilemma remains. [The law did not save, but only condemns (Paul)].

If t ...[text shortened]... f free will.

1 Corinthians 15:22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.

If your theory about there not being condemnation/hell is accurate then what of the writings about condemnation/hell? Do you simply view other passages referring to such suffering as disjointed pieces of theology all thrown into one book or do you view those passages referring to comdemnation/hell as temperal sufferings?

As I have said before, I believe that our choices shape our destiny. Therefore, our choices dictate our eternal fate. If this is so, why do we say that God condemns us? Why must we say that he rejects us, thereby, he causes our suffering? For example, if I want to stick my face in a fan despite your objections is it you who are causing my sufferings by allowing me to do so?

For me, Christ's sacrifice simply allows us access to God when we die for those who chose him one way or another. This means for those who died before and after his sacrifice on the cross.

Originally posted by vistesd
If I recall correctly, for you hell is not eternal torment, because it is destroyed in the lake of fire—the “second death”, which being a death, I would think is final. So at least there is a terminus to the torment.

Have I got that right?

__________________________________

I really must get another copy of The Great Divorce, I know. Maybe re thinking reasonably or not. Some, like FreakyKBH, are pretty up-front in saying just that.

Just out of curiosity, is there an acceptable level of torment/punishment? Is it acceptable if temperal but not acceptable if eternal? Also, what can be said of mankind who punishes those around him for certain "sins"? What of those thrown into jail for life or those condemned to die? Is this acceptable punishment? Would you view such punishment as immoral as you view the morality of a God who might do similarly in regards to those who are condemned to hell?

Originally posted by vistesd
If I recall correctly, for you hell is not eternal torment, because it is destroyed in the lake of fire—the “second death”, which being a death, I would think is final. So at least there is a terminus to the torment.

Have I got that right?

__________________________________

I really must get another copy of The Great Divorce, I know. Maybe the local library . . .

As far as hell is concern if I'm not mistaken there were several words
used that were all translated into the word hell. The 2nd death is
eternal, and I do believe that the punishment is as bad as the grace
and mercy is good.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
If your theory about there not being condemnation/hell is accurate then what of the writings about condemnation/hell? Do you simply view other passages referring to such suffering as disjointed pieces of theology all thrown into one book or do you view those passages referring to comdemnation/hell as temperal sufferings?

As I have said before, I believe t ...[text shortened]... one way or another. This means for those who died before and after his sacrifice on the cross.

I simply think that other texts need to be read in the light of the ones I have listed (contextualized, treated metaphorically where necessary), rather than the other way around—in order to make sense of a God who is love, anyway.

As for the rest, I repeat what I posted to Epi on the Sin/Salvation (redux) thread:

To flesh out the terms of my response above to Epi:

(1) God is the adjudicator of eternal punishment; or

(2) I am the knowing adjudicator of my own eternal punishment; or

(3) I am the unkowing adjudicator of my own eternal punishment.

Under (1), God is not acting out of love.

Under (2), I have submitted that I am (likely, anyway) insane.

Under (3), I am ignorant.

Originally posted by whodey
Just out of curiosity, is there an acceptable level of torment/punishment? Is it acceptable if temperal but not acceptable if eternal? Also, what can be said of mankind who punishes those around him for certain "sins"? What of those thrown into jail for life or those condemned to die? Is this acceptable punishment? Would you view such punishment as immor ...[text shortened]... ew the morality of a God who might do similarly in regards to those who are condemned to hell?

Just out of curiosity, is there an acceptable level of torment/punishment? Is it acceptable if temporal but not acceptable if eternal?

The first problem is that—as I have argued again and again and again—soterias is fundamentally not a juridical concept. Therefore, salvation is not about pardon versus punishment! And I am simply going to start refusing to address it in those terms at all. (Well, you know me—maybe... 😉 )

With that said: I don’t know: How about 100 years of torment? How about 1,000? How about 10,000? What will satisfy your lust for punishment? What will satisfy God’s? The Inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition were (involuntarily, perhaps) relatively kind: they couldn’t burn their victims forever, only until they died.

Now, that is harsh, I know: and harsher than you deserve. But it at least sets the issue in bold relief.

Originally posted by vistesd
I simply think that other texts need to be read in the light of the ones I have listed (contextualized, treated metaphorically where necessary), rather than the other way around—in order to make sense of a God who is love, anyway.

As for the rest, I repeat what I posted to Epi on the Sin/Salvation (redux) thread:

To flesh out the terms of my response a ...[text shortened]...

Under (2), I have submitted that I am (likely, anyway) insane.

Under (3), I am ignorant.

I would like to respond to #1 which is

God is the adjudicator of eternal punishment, therefore he is not acting out of love.

In this scenerio we are assuming that punishing someone is unloving. I would take issue with that statement. Especially in light of it being done in a corrective tone. Also, we are not simply focusing on the individual, rather, we are also considering the individuals impact on the rest of those within creation. For example, one locks up a criminal so that the criminal cannot do further harm to others within society. Therefore, to allow such a criminal to continue indefinatly their wicked behavoir towards innocent people would be unloving to those that do not conduct themselves in such a way.

As for #2, you might say that those who knowingly rebel against an all powerful and all knowing God is insane. However, the other option is that they simply do not believe he is all knowing and all powerful. Is deception, whether it be self induced, a symptom of insanity?

Edit: Then again, I have thought for a long time that the devil is quiet insane.

In regards to #3, I view God to be a just judge and those who are "ignorant" I think cover a wide range of circumstances. For example, some are unable to be knowledgable in terms of cognitive ability etc as where others simply are not exposed to such knowledge. In regards to those people God will be the judge and I trust he will be just.

Originally posted by whodey
I would like to respond to #1 which is

God is the adjudicator of eternal punishment, therefore he is not acting out of love.

In this scenerio we are assuming that punishing someone is unloving. I would take issue with that statement. Especially in light of it being done in a corrective tone. Also, we are not simply focusing on the individual, rather ...[text shortened]... such knowledge. In regards to those people God will be the judge and I trust he will be just.

In this scenario we are assuming that punishing someone is unloving. I would take issue with that statement. Especially in light of it being done in a corrective tone.

I have always admitted corrective action for the well-being of the beloved. Instead of your “especially” I would say “only.”

Also, we are not simply focusing on the individual, rather, we are also considering the individuals impact on the rest of those within creation. For example, one locks up a criminal so that the criminal cannot do further harm to others within society. Therefore, to allow such a criminal to continue indefinitely their wicked behavior towards innocent people would be unloving to those that do not conduct themselves in such a way.

This is relevant to the human domain; it is not relevant to the domain of God, heaven and hell.

As for #2, you might say that those who knowingly rebel against an all powerful and all knowing God is insane or.......they simply do not believe he is all knowing and all powerful. Is deception, whether it be self induced, a symptom of insanity?

Hmmm... I think this moves it from insanity to ignorance (or illusion, whether self-deceptive or not; after all, as I think you once pointed out: if we are aware of it, it is no longer self-deception). As a kind of aside, however, let me offer this (which I have posted before):

On mdhall’s counsel, I started reading the Philokalia* (translated by G.E.H Palmer, Philip Sherrard and (now Archbishop) Kallistos Ware. In the translator’s glossary of terms, here is the commentary on the word “sin”:

SIN (hamartia): the primary meaning of the Greek word is ‘failure’ or, more specifically, “failure to hit the mark’ and so a ‘missing of the mark’, a ‘going astray’ or, ultimately, ‘failure to achieve the purpose for which one is created’. It is closely related, therefore to illusion (q.v.). The translation ‘sin’ should be read with these connotations in mind.

ILLUSION (plani): in our version sometimes also translated ‘delusion’. Literally, wandering astray, deflection from the right path; hence error, beguilement, the acceptance of a mirage mistaken for truth. Cf. the literal sense of sin (q.v.) as ‘missing the mark’.

If this is correct (and these guys are Greek scholars in the Orthodox tradition), then “salvation from sin” means salvation from illusion.

In regards to #3, I view God to be a just judge and those who are "ignorant" I think cover a wide range of circumstances. For example, some are unable to be knowledgeable as where others simply are not exposed to such knowledge. In regards to those people God will be the judge.

And for those to whom the knowledge is presented, but it just doesn’t (honestly) make sense?